1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a device used in the treatment of male impotency, and in particular to an external penile support device and method for stimulating and maintaining a penile erection.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Different kinds of devices are available for overcoming the impotency problem. One type of device is penile implants where semi-rigid rods are inserted in the erectile chambers permitting stiffening of the penis position to cause erection. Implantation of these kinds of devices can lead to total inorganic impotence in cases where there may have been only psychogenic or partial organic impotence.
Other types of devices are externally applied support devices of the type which are non-invasive. One device for treating impotency is that described by Gorokhovsky in U.S. Pat. No. 4,362,152 for an erector device. The device comprises a prosthetic erector for for remedying problems of impotency in males by using a pair of substantially rigid rods encased within a common elastic encasement in a side-by-side relation. The rods have a first end having a yoke defined by first and second arms forming a pair of spaced apart, generally hook-shaped arcuate arms which are adapted for encircling the glans of the penis around and in abutment with the penis corona. Securement means are provided at the second end of the rod for securing the erector to the penis. The rods have a bend located at a station about one-third of the length of the rod away from the first end, the bend contacting the penis superficial dorsal vein for applying pressure to the veins. The purpose is to constrict flow of blood that would otherwise leave the penis, thereby causing the penis to become engorged with blood to cause an erection. The second end of each rod also has a bend surrounded by an enlarged encasement for contacting and applying pressure to the penis superficial dorsal vein and corpora cavernosa. The securement means is capable of stretching and retracting in response to corresponding changes in penile erection, and expansion of the glans causes the arms of the yoke to rotate relatively further apart causing the second ends of the rods to rotate relatively closer together. This stretches the securement means and causes the second ends of the rods to exert increasing pressure on the dorsal vein and corpora cavernosa without causing pressure on the arterial vessels and corpus cavernosum urethra.
Another device for treating impotency is that described in Russian Pat. No. 178,044 by Ploticher, et al. It comprises retaining rods within a common case, and has extremities of its yoke abutting at a single point of contact which results in one extremity projecting beyond the other.
Such conventional devices do not have a structure that is necessarily comfortable to the wearer of the device in that each incorporates by its design protruding elements and encasements which may tend to inhibit the effectiveness of the device. For example, the action of the prior art devices in applying pressure to the superficial dorsal vein may be inhibited by a design which does not necessarily engage or apply pressure to the vein but may miss the vein in its operation. In addition, the protruding elements may push into the fleshy part of the penis and yet miss the veins so that the operation of the device is uncomfortable and less than optimum in terms of stimulating and maintaining an erection.
The structure of conventional devices and their manufacture are of such a type that there is a combination of differing materials and assembly of parts such that there may be crevices and portions of the device which could readily provide an environment for bacterial growth and the like. It is imperative in such sensitive areas involving sex organs that the device not have crevices and portions where such bacterial growth could occur, and such growth leading to causes of infection is not healthful in this sensitive area of medical devices.
Another problem with the prior art is that the typical materials used are such that they are or can be corrosive, and there is no traceability and consistency regarding the manufacture and assembly of such devices, since each device under conventional methods must be individually manufactured and measured for individual use in each patient's case. Another problem with conventional support devices of the type mentioned above is that such devices encounter the problem of increased manufacturing costs and lack of durability due to the assembly steps required. Also, the structure of the unit is typically such that it may be prohibitive in the costs of manufacturing same.
Another problem with the prior art devices is that they utilize an assemblage of a number of differing parts which causes problems in the reliability and durability of the unit, in that it can become disassembled and possibly deteriorate during use. This may cause injury to the user therof or to the user's partner during coitus, and could have devastating effects on the treatment of the patient.
Another problem encountered in the prior art devices is that the design and structure utilized may not be conducive and convenient for the user thereof to fit the device onto the penis in a comfortable fashion. Because of the manner of the design, there can be problems encountered in attempting to secure the device to the penis and scrotum area. In many instances, the conventional prior art devices may cause extreme pain if not properly fit and properly adjusted prior to use by the user thereof.
Conventional external penile support devices have the additional problem of not being adapted to readily retain their shape, and to be comprised of parts in standard sizes which can be assembled to fit any user in need of an external device.
Finally, conventional external penile support devices do not provide an easily fitted reliable and durable device which has improved characteristics in terms of aiding and maintaining an erection for the user thereof.